- Standing Committee B

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Eric Forth: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind the Committee that adequate notice should be given of all amendments, and that my co-Chairman and I will not as a general rule call starred amendments. I now come to the ritualistic warning: would all Members, and anyone else in the Room, ensure that mobile telephones, pagers and so on are switched off.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 a.m. on Thursday 13th October) meet—
(a) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 18th October;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 20th October;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 25th October; and
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order namely Clauses 1 to 23; Clauses 24 to 37; Schedule 1; Clause 38; Schedule 2; Clauses 39 to 44; Schedule 3; Clause 45; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 25th October.
I welcome all members of the Committee. I am particularly delighted to have the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth, and that of Mr. Benton, your co-Chairman. I am also pleased to have had discussions with the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) about the programme motion, as I want to ensure that we have sufficient time for the Bill to be properly scrutinised. Some important provisions in the Bill will have a real impact on the public, especially those concerning alcohol. It also includes a large section dealing with the regulation of firearms, which deals with some technical issues, and I am keen that those technical matters should be properly pursued and scrutinised; some measures dealing with use of knives are very important to our constituents.
Although the Bill is relatively short in contrast to some—I hope that that commends it to you, Mr. Forth—its provisions deal with some significant issues. It is about trying to reduce violent crime. We have a good record on reducing violent crime, but there is much more to do. In particular, the impact of alcohol is significant. We estimate that up to half of all violent crime is linked to alcohol, so the provisions that we shall discuss this morning are of great importance.
We have made provision in our timetable for an extra sitting should it prove necessary, and I am certainly keen to be flexible in that regard. I am sure  that we can make good progress, and that all members of the Committee will want to press on and ensure that we get through all the amendments and new clauses. I hope that the Committee’s proceedings will be smart and brisk, but also to the point, so that we can explore some of the significant and important issues in the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I join the Minister in offering you a warm welcome to Chair, Mr Forth. I know that you and your colleague will conduct our proceedings with your usual mixture of charm and efficiency. I also welcome the Minister, and my hon. Friends. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) will keep me in good order. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is extremely experienced in these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) has tabled a number of amendments, to which he will speak in due course.
The Minister was right to say that the Bill deals with big issues. That prompts me to express the hope that Government Back Benchers will make a substantial contribution. I think you will agree, Mr. Forth, that over the years they have tended not say much in Standing Committee, but they ought to contribute more to our debates, because the sort of problems that we all face, and which the Bill attempts to deal with, are rife in their constituencies, too. We certainly need a full debate.
I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who represents the Liberal Democrats, because the opening amendments are hers. I know that she will want to tell us a little more about her party’s policy. Hansard shows that on 25 January 2003, in a debate on the Licensing Act 2003, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) confirmed that it was his party’s policy that alcohol should be sold to persons who had reached the age of 16, rather than 18. We would like to hear some justification for that, and we look forward to hearing the hon. Lady’s arguments in that connection. Some of us think that policy unwise.
We have a difficulty with the timing. As we all know, the Bill, which contains about 45 clauses and some schedules, was published some months ago. That is what received a Second Reading. Over the summer each of us tried to make a calculation about how long would be appropriate in Committee for such a Bill, but the problem is that the scene changes day by day, and the Government have tabled 60 or more amendments to their own Bill. That suggests that they have been hasty, and such practice is becoming commonplace. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that when the Government table amendments to their own Bills just before Committee, that is not a practice that we can support.
I remember vividly, in Committees on Bills on criminal justice and identity cards, that in the debates on the clauses we were faced with completely different matter from what was in the Bill on Second Reading. The time that we have agreed may need to be expanded considerably.

James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend share my interest in finding out from the Government whether there is any prospect of further Government amendments being tabled in Committee, and, if that is the case, whether we can have the earliest possible sight of them?

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He knows, as we all do, the Government’s tendency to produce further amendments during the passage of such Bills in Committee. I should like the Minister, in response to my few words this morning, to give an undertaking that no more amendments or new clauses will be introduced in Committee. That would help us considerably, because we must prepare for the various debates.
On the other hand, if the Minister cannot give us that undertaking, she may be able to say to us at this early stage—the early stage being the important point—that she has some further amendments, and tell us what subject they will be on, so that we shall be at least somewhat prepared. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
It could be said that the Government have set out with the best intentions—but the Opposition feel that in many ways the Bill is irrelevant, and that many powers already exist under the law to deal with the mischief to which the Minister has referred. That is a subject for later debate.
There are some contentious areas of the Bill, however. The Minister rightly points out that it is more or less split into three parts. The first, lengthy part deals with drinking banning orders and alcohol disorder zones. I look forward to hearing some observations from Government Back Benchers about excessive drinking. I dare say that in your constituency, Mr. Forth, as well as in mine and in many others, there is deep concern about the volume of binge drinking, and the violence that results from it. For now I simply lay that down as a general thought; I shall deal with the subject in detail later. It is arguable that the clauses that deal with alcohol-related matters alone could take up at least three quarters of the time that we have for the Bill.
There is also the contentious issue of firearms. I know for certain that all members of the Committee, including you, Mr. Forth, will have received a huge postbag from constituents and from others throughout the country, who, if I may say so in the simplest of terms, are all law-abiding decent citizens who fear the impact of the Bill and the firearms provisions on what they properly perceive as their lawful hobby. We must steer a line between trying to punish the criminals in our community, and not punishing those who pursue lawful and perfectly decent hobbies. I hope that the Minister will help us.
The provisions that relate to knives are a third critical element of the Bill, and could take us well beyond the time allotted, which is why I have my doubts about the programme motion. It is commonplace to read in the newspapers of youngsters carrying bladed articles. There are some horrifying figures, to which we will refer when the matter comes up in our discussion of the Bill, on the alarming  number of youngsters who carry knives on school premises. That must concern us all. We want to get that area absolutely right, and ensure that we are at one on it—although I fear that we may not be.
I have hit on three contentious areas, yet how many sittings do we have? We have today, which will get us under way with a helpful debate on clause 1, the sittings next week, and a little time the week after. Will that be enough? I venture to suggest that it will not. A further reason why that will not be enough time is that, as all colleagues will have noticed, many of the clauses refer to regulations that can be made by the Home Secretary. I wrote to the Minister on that topic in August with a request that we should know about the regulations at an early stage—if not before the Committee, certainly during its course—so that we could debate them. There are several clauses that state that the Home Secretary may make regulations in connection with certain matters. Our debate could seem almost meaningless if we were discussing a general principle without having seen all the regulations. That is another area that could take us into extra time.
We will not vote against the motion, because last night the Minister and her Front-Bench colleague were extremely courteous and said that they had no intention of imposing knives on us or of stifling proper debate. As you know better than any of us, Mr. Forth, the point of a Standing Committee has always been to scrutinise a Bill line by line. That is what I hope that we will be able to do, and if that means that we have to sit all night one night—many of us are used to such sittings—we have no problems with that. Alternatively, we could sit for an extra three or four weeks. We may be ignored, because there are other matters outside this Committee that appear to be attracting the attention of the press in relation to politics generally. However, it does not matter much if we are ignored, because we do not want flash newspaper headlines; we want proper scrutiny of the Bill, line by line. Our only purpose in being here is to amend the Bill to make it better.
When the Minister responds and comments on the request that I made earlier, I hope that she will undertake to look constructively at all the amendments. Sometimes Ministers do not accept Opposition amendments on principle, because they take the view that it is not their job to do so—but in a Committee such as this, that would not be helpful. I have read all the amendments very carefully and, frankly, I think that there are many from all sides that deserve the most serious consideration by the Government. Will the Minister promise to keep a completely open mind and to accept amendments if the arguments are well made? I look to her colleagues in that connection.
Those are my opening observations on the motion. I look forward to our deliberations. I have my doubts about the time available to us, but I certainly appreciate the constructive and courteous approach that the Minister has taken so far, and we will not vote against the motion.

Lynne Featherstone: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Forth. This is the first time that I have led for the Liberal Democrats on a Committee, and I hope that I will serve under your chairmanship on many more occasions. We had an excellent debate on Second Reading, and as the hon. Member for Woking said, a huge number of amendments have been tabled. I hope that we can have a vigorous and robust debate on the subjects about which, as he rightly said, there are concerns.
We intend to create firm legislation to tackle the twin evils of excessive alcohol consumption and inappropriate access to, or use of, weapons. We are determined to contribute to the quality of the legislation on an issue that is so important to every Member of this House who has constituents—and we all have. We need to ensure that the legislation is workable and enforceable, so that nifty lawyers cannot weave their way around it; I apologise to hon. Members—and, indeed, learned Members—if they are in that profession.
I look forward to debating the Bill in Committee, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I hope that the seven scheduled sittings will prove to be adequate. Like the hon. Member for Woking, I am concerned about the amount of time that has been allocated to the Committee, but I was reassured last night by the Minister’s suggestion that, provided that we make progress, there will be no knives and that there will be a relatively relaxed attitude to extension, as necessary.

Mark Prisk: I, too, am delighted to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Forth, and I look forward to your expertise on the rules, which is well known to all hon. Members.
Moving on from that perhaps gratuitous remark, I shall pick up the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. The Committee is, in essence, about scrutiny. We are concerned not with any day-to-day publicity, but with the quality of the law. That quality rests on two things, to which the Minister referred: sufficient time in Committee to deal with the 45 clauses and the variety of schedules attached to them, and sufficient time for organisations outside the Committee and the House to be able to respond to the legislation and inform us, so that we can improve it.
There is a danger, which you will understand, Mr. Forth, in presenting us with more Government amendments than there are clauses—as my hon. Friend said, there are already more than 60 amendments—less than a fortnight before we are due to consider the legislation. How are we to perform our task, and how are the outside organisations, which will be trying to catch up and ensure that they understand the changes in the Minister’s thoughts, to inform our debate?
I am not clear whether the amendments from the Home Office are evidence of an oversight or errors in the legislation. I am sure that the Minister will clarify whether there was an oversight or an error each time she presents an amendment to the Committee, but it would be helpful if she could tell us in this debate the reasons behind these belated amendments. We note the programme proposed by the Government as a whole, and my hon. Friend is right to say that we have some concerns. We do not want to be unco-operative, but we want to ensure that people understand that we are here to get the legislation right, so will the Minister give us the reasons for those belated amendments?
The use of the word “knives” in relation to programming is particularly inappropriate, given the Bill’s content, but will the Minister put on record the fact that the Government do not intend to timetable—that is a better word—this set of deliberations, so that we can have confidence in any discussions that might need to take place?
Lastly, will the Minister assure us that she and her colleagues are willing to review our progress continually? I am more than happy to co-operate—it is important that we do—and we approach the programme motion with that view. With those thoughts, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

James Clappison: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time today, Mr. Forth. I very much look forward to that experience, as I am sure all members of the Committee do. You will be aware that matters relating to criminal justice and crime are often debated constructively, with give and take on both sides. Therefore, I begin by welcoming the remarks from both sides of the Committee about the timing. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friends, and also welcome those of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. I agree with the Minister’s comments about the need to take seriously the abuse of alcohol, firearms and knives. As she said, those technical issues will take up a lot of the Committee’s time.
I make a plea to the Minister for flexibility on timing, and reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford about the need to keep that matter under review. I have tabled a new clause on an issue that is of interest to many of my constituents, and I am extremely anxious that it should be debated, as they will want to know that Parliament takes time to consider the serious issues related to protecting public servants.

Humfrey Malins: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not referring to his new clause before. I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that it raises vital issues in relation to public services, and I congratulate him on tabling it; it needs a full debate.

James Clappison: Those issues are of interest to my constituents, who know that I am raising them in the House. People involved in the emergency services, the health service, teaching and public transport would all be protected by the new clause, and I would be extremely embarrassed to go back to them and say that  Parliament did not have time to consider the subject properly. I am sure that they would be disappointed, as would many others, not just my constituents. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of public service workers and members of their families who will want to know that we have taken the time to consider the issue properly. I hope that the Minister and the Government are prepared to be flexible about time and will keep it under review as the Committee proceeds, so as to ensure that we have sufficient time to do those important issues justice.

Hazel Blears: I certainly intend to conduct our deliberations—with all members of the Committee, I hope—without opposing measures just for the sake of it. That cuts both ways. I want practical and workable legislation that does the job that we want it to do. There is a fair degree of unanimity regarding the problems that we are trying to attack, such as binge drinking and the misuse of guns and knives. Those issues affect all our constituents, so this business is important. I shall not oppose amendments for the sake of it, and I urge Members on both sides to take the same approach. We may get some useful additions to the Bill; that is how legislation should proceed.

James Clappison: I welcome the Minister’s comments about taking a constructive approach to amendments. If she sees merit in an amendment, will she be prepared to take it away, reflect on it and come back with something on Report?

Hazel Blears: Yes, although of course, I cannot anticipate the debate. If issues are raised that I think worthy of consideration, I am sure that that can be done, but I do not want to pre-empt our discussions. I am sure that hon. Members will have a whole range of different views.
I recognise that late amendments are difficult, not just for members of the Committee but for external organisations. It is important that such organisations should be able to set out their views and have an input. We have done our best to ensure that our amendments have been tabled, but there has been a huge amount of consultation over the summer, particularly about firearms, to try to ensure that we get the legislation right.
I expect that we have all had many letters in our postbags from people involved in historical re-enactment groups, and in the sport of airsoft. I have certainly had a range of correspondence, and we have been in detailed consultation. We are trying to address a mischief—I will not go into the detail—about the misuse of imitations, but the area is complex. My apologies to the Committee on the issue of firearms, but we have flagged up that there will be some new amendments about the definition of realistic imitations so that we focus on the mischief that we are trying to address without catch-all definitions that impinge on the law-abiding majority.
The principle of the Bill and all its provisions is to protect the law-abiding majority of citizens in this country from the lawless behaviour of the  irresponsible minority. That principle runs through all the provisions, and so it is clearly important to get it right.

Mark Prisk: Unfortunately, a couple of the e-mails that the Minister’s office sent to me did not initially have the attachments containing the amendments, and we tried to catch up. For clarity’s sake, can she confirm the number of amendments, so that I can be sure that I have the total number?

Hazel Blears: I am told that there are 47 so far; if the hon. Gentleman has that number, he is up to date. If he has any less, I shall ensure that he gets a full set.
We have also flagged up our intention to consider the possibility of amendments on the subject of the sale of air weapons through registered firearms dealers. That will clearly be a matter for debate.
There will be some amendments related to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, because of an urgent problem in connection with transitional provisions arising from a court case that has been decided in a particular way. There was no option but to table amendments. When Members hear the details of the amendments, they will agree that the present position is not one that any of us would support. That is why those amendments are late.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister mentioned the possibility of tabling amendments concerning the sale of air weapons and regulating dealers’ premises. Amendments have already been tabled that will allow us to discuss the sale, provision and hire of air weapons and ammunition. Would it not have been more helpful if the amendments had been brought before the Committee first, rather than our hearing about them through the good offices of BBC Radio Scotland, in a story that has been running over the past two days? This is a serious matter, and it would have been rather more helpful if the Committee had had the opportunity to consider the amendments, or at least to have understood that they would be tabled, before a story began to appear on the wires of Radio Scotland.

Hazel Blears: The Government have given an indication of how seriously we take such issues. Hon. Members know that over the summer there was intensive dialogue with members of the Scottish Executive, who clearly have a particular interest in this subject—but it is not an exclusive interest, as hon. Members from all over the country have raised such issues. In correspondence with Members, I have given as early an indication as I could of the Government’s intention. I have no doubt that we will have a constructive debate.
Two other areas require amendment. We intend to raise the age limit for possession of crossbows to bring it in line with that for knives and guns, which involves fairly straightforward amendments. Secondly, we have amendments to make in connection with offensive weapons. Again, we want to try to make sure that when we outlaw offensive weapons we do not prevent law-abiding people from practising martial arts or other sporting activities. We want to get the balance  right. The Bill is about punishing the lawless minority and protecting the law-abiding majority. An amendment could involve exemptions for sports and martial arts training.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister knows, of course, that carrying an offensive weapon in a public place is an offence anyway. Enforcement is the name of the game; many of us think that that is the crucial problem.

Hazel Blears: I have no doubt that we will debate the balance between enforcement and banning manufacture, importation and sale. I believe that we need to do both, and I am sure that that will be a common thread throughout our discussion.
I am happy to be flexible. The points raised about public servants by the hon. Member for Hertsmere are important. We should protect people who are serving the public, and I am sure that we will debate that issue. As I have said, we have had discussions with the Front Benchers who represent the two main Opposition parties and agreed a programme motion. We offered an extra sitting, but that offer has not been taken up; Members appear to be happy with the programme motion as it stands.
I hope that we will make significant and brisk progress in examining the issues before us. I look forward to the debate, and to contributions from all hon. Members who raise issues that their constituents regard as important in their daily lives.

Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 a.m. on Thursday 13th October) meet—
(a) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 18th October;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 20th October;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 25th October; and
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order namely Clauses 1 to 23; Clauses 24 to 37; Schedule 1; Clause 38; Schedule 2; Clauses 39 to 44; Schedule 3; Clause 45; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 25th October.

Clause 1 - Drinking banning orders

Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at beginning insert
‘Subject to subsection (4A) below,’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 116, in clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
‘(4A)Before making a drinking banning order, a court must receive a report from an appropriate officer about the proposed subject of the order, which contains information about the subject and, in particular, about whether there is any reason to suspect that he may be—
(a)suffering from substance addiction (including alcohol dependence);
(b)a person falling within section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20); or
(c)suffering from any other recognised physical or mental illness or condition which could either—
(i)affect his ability to restrict his intake of alcohol;
(ii)cause him to engage in criminal conduct while under the influence of alcohol; or
(iii)affect his ability to comply with a drinking banning order.
(4B)In subsection (5) above “an appropriate officer” means—
(a)where the proposed subject is aged 18 or over, an officer of the National Offender Management Service or a social worker of a local authority social services department, or
(b)where the proposed subject is aged under 18, a social worker of a local authority social services department or a member of a youth offending team.
(4C)If the court determines that the proposed subject of a drinking banning order may be a person falling within subsection 5(a) to (c) above, the court shall not make a drinking banning order unless satisfied, on receipt of medical evidence, that—
(a)his ability to understand and comply with the order will not be significantly restricted by reason of his being a person falling within subsection (5)(a) to (c) above; and
(b)compliance with the order, either alone or in combination to any other order or sentence to which he is subject, would not have a deleterious effect upon his mental or physical health.’.

Lynne Featherstone: Amendment No. 110 is a technical amendment referring to amendment No. 116. I am concerned that vulnerable people may be subject to drinking banning orders. As we have seen with antisocial behaviour orders, they could be inappropriately served on vulnerable people, such as those who have mental health issues or alcohol issues. That is a particular concern, given that orders could be applied arbitrarily or disproportionately.
Without the amendments, the orders could be used for a purpose for which they were not intended. For example, an ordinary member of society, or even a police officer, might see a person with Asperger’s syndrome or Tourette’s syndrome in a public place and think that they were being disorderly or creating some sort of disturbance that could be construed as being a subject for a drinking banning order. Of course, such an order would be totally inappropriate. I know of an example in which an alcoholic man was served with an ASBO, which has escalated to a sentence of five years. Such a situation would be inappropriate, too.
There is also the issue of whether an individual has the ability to comply with a drinking banning order. That ability might be constrained if the person had a mental health issue or was an alcoholic, for example, and such irrationality in the person would render the order arbitrary. In such cases, detention or a custodial sentence consequent on a breach—or suspected breach—of an order would, in our opinion, be contrary to article 5 of the European convention on human rights. We need to be satisfied that the court is aware of that individual’s status. The amendment would mean that the court was made aware as by right. That way, the provision would be about stopping the unlawful minority, as the Minister says, and not about punishing those who are not capable of complying with the law.

Humfrey Malins: I think that I speak for all of us when I say that I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for introducing the amendment. She highlights an issue of some importance, but having looked at the matter carefully in the last day or two, I do not think that the amendment can quite have my support.
I declare an interest—I should have done so earlier—if, indeed, it is one. I have been a lawyer and sit as a part-time district judge and Crown court recorder. My work in that field has made me very familiar with the issues of mental illness in relation to courts. It is important to distinguish between two types of defendant. At the London courts where I sit—Camberwell, Bow street, Horseferry road or wherever—those who have been drunk when they have offended fall, broadly speaking, into two categories. The first is comprised of those persons whom one looks at and says, “This is hopeless; there is nothing that can be done”. Such people live on the streets, have a mental illness and are so vulnerable—that was the word that the hon. Lady used—that there is not a single sentence that a court could impose that would help in any way at all. It is as bad as that.
The second category is of people who are different from that; they are without mental illness, have offended because of alcohol and can be dealt with in a certain way. However, the hon. Lady referred to the very vulnerable, and I understand her point only too well.
I do not quite support the hon. Lady’s amendment No. 116 because its effect would be that a court would have to receive a report on the relevant person before a drinking banning order was made. In my judgment, that could be bureaucratic; the court would appear to have its hands tied. It would be considering a drinking banning order but be required to have a report. The court ought to have a wider discretion. In many cases, one would not need a report because one could summarise the nature of the defendant, who might be, to use a bit of slang, “up together” in every sense, but have offended in a way that is connected with alcohol. One could then move forward smoothly to the drink banning order if one felt that to be appropriate.
On the other hand, one sees cases for which a drinking banning order would be no use at all because of the extreme vulnerability of the person concerned. The other slight problem is that if one is to have a report every time one makes such an order, that will take a lot of time, and I think that the Minister will be concerned about that. Such reports nowadays are prepared by people working for what we call the probation service, although it sometimes has a new title; they are the same people working desperately hard. They are awfully underfunded and the reports can take weeks. That is a debate for another day.
How could the probation officer get in touch with the most vulnerable people so that a report could be prepared? That is a practical handling exercise. I have sat in court and asked for a report on a certain person, but the questions, “What is your mobile phone number?” and, “What is your address?” are completely irrelevant—the person has no mobile  phone number, address or any method of contact. The tying together of the two parties is extremely difficult and takes a great deal of time.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is excellent in many ways. Importantly, it highlights, at an early stage in our deliberations, the position of the most vulnerable in our communities. Let us not be mistaken: there are many of them. However, would it not be more appropriate if the amendment No. 116 read, “Before making a drinking banning order, a court may ask for a report from an appropriate officer”? That would be an extremely sensible approach.

John Thurso: May I say at the outset what a pleasure it is to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth?
I declare a general interest to the Committee. [Interruption.] I shall leave the firearms bit until later. My general interest relates to alcohol. I have held a licence and am still involved with a number of bodies in the licensing trade. The Minister has had correspondence from the British Hospitality Association and others. I shall be raising that later, but I should like the Committee to know about my background.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. I was grateful to hear the words of the hon. Member for Woking about the amendments, and the general tone with which he welcomed it. I appreciate his suggestion that “may” may be more appropriate. The critical issue concerns vulnerable people, and I hope that the Government will take it on. I do not for a moment suspect that, with the limited means available to us, we have got the amendment right, but I hope that the Government will consider it.
I do not want to get into a long and sterile, if wonderfully parliamentary, debate about “may”, “shall” and so on, but my concern is that if “may” applies, “may not” also applies. The problem is that the court “may not” and the whole point of what we are seeking to do might be lost, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that placing an obligation of yet more paperwork, when it is clear that the person being dealt with is absolutely fine, needs to be considered.
Almost my first engagement shortly after I was elected to this place was with a mental health charity in Sutherland. I have been consistently and constantly surprised at the degree of mental health problems in our society and the number of people who suffer. That touches almost every family in the country and I have personal experience of such problems. One member of my family was alcoholic but has now recovered and an in-law member of the family suffers from Tourette’s, which is an extraordinary syndrome. It is interesting to note that the disability discrimination legislation applies to Tourette’s, but none of us has found a way of implementing it.
When it comes to matters of criminal justice, we must separate people who set out with criminal intent and should be punished from those who suffer from a condition. My hon. Friend’s amendment, if not perfectly worded, certainly raises an important issue, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.

James Clappison: As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking has done, I must declare an interest as a member of the Bar.

Kevan Jones: What sort of bar?

James Clappison: The English Bar. I hope that the Committee will not think that I am becoming part of a lawyers’ club with my hon. Friend—[Hon. Members: “Never!”] I am glad to hear that.
There was a great deal of common sense in what my hon. Friend said, drawing on his experience as a solicitor and a recorder of the Crown court. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is trying to achieve because it is important to protect vulnerable people in such circumstances for all the reasons that she gave. I would have more sympathy with her amendment if it would give discretion to the courts. This is an area where we could trust the courts to exercise discretion as to whether there should be a report. To require a report to be prepared in every case is slightly out of proportion and would create a disproportionate work load for the National Offender Management Service and the other bodies mentioned in the amendment.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady’s amendment, but I think it slightly offends against common sense.

Diane Abbott: Perhaps I should declare an interest because I live in Hackney where junkies and alcoholics hang around the streets all the time, so I am self-interested. Although I appreciate the thinking behind the hon. Lady’s amendment, I suspect that she is referring precisely to people with alcohol, drug and low-level mental health problems.
On one hand, there is an issue about the social support, care and aftercare we offer to people, but the reality is that if I went back to Middleton road in Dalston and said, “Yes, Hazel Blears is bringing in a drink banning order but, no, she cannot get rid of the alcoholics who hang around at the end of the road every day”, people would ask what the point was.

Hazel Blears: The two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green would introduce a new requirement—I stress “requirement”—before a drinking banning order could be made because it would require the court to obtain a report. That is the point that the hon. Member for Woking made. Let me set out the purpose of the drinking banning order. We aim to deal with the widespread problem of binge drinking on Friday and Saturday nights not only in town and city centres, but in many rural market towns and on suburban estates, where people often gain access to alcohol from off-licences, as well as from pubs and clubs. The order is aimed at such excessive behaviour, which every one of us will have witnessed for ourselves if we have been out in the early hours in our local communities—in the interests of research, I am sure. I know that I have witnessed such behaviour.
We are trying to ensure that there is a change in behaviour. The orders are intended to apply for a minimum of two months, which is a relatively short period, to make people face up to the behaviour in which they have been indulging. The vast majority of people who indulge in binge drinking on Friday and Saturday nights go out deliberately to get as drunk as they can. Many of them hold down pretty reasonable jobs during the week and do not necessarily fall into the category of vulnerable alcoholics, although I am not saying that there is not a small minority of such people. The vast majority of people behave quite properly when they are sober, when they go to work and when they are with their families. On Friday and Saturday nights, however, something happens to them under the influence of huge amounts of alcohol, and we then see disorderly behaviour, which often veers into violent crime. That is what the drinking banning orders are aimed at; they are intended as a short sharp shock to make people confront their behaviour.
 Some of the conditions that we envisage in the orders would relate to not going into certain pubs, and it ought to be possible to comply with such conditions. We are simply trying to protect decent people who want to enjoy a good night out drinking with their friends on a Friday or Saturday night without being met by the prospect of people careering around the streets in a complete state of alcohol disarray and indulging in the behaviour that we have seen all too often. I should make it clear to the Committee that the orders are aimed at such excessive behaviour.

Humfrey Malins: The nature of binge drinking is, of course, a debate for later, but the Minister has outlined a scenario. What is wrong with a combination of the good enforcement of existing law and antisocial behaviour orders?

Hazel Blears: ASBOs are for a minimum of two years and are designed to attack a range of more complex antisocial behaviour than simply the problems that arise from binge drinking. We have provided for the drinking banning order to apply from a minimum of two months—where somebody just needs to be confronted—to a maximum of two years. It is therefore a different kind of order, which is specifically focused and targeted.
Let me deal now with the issue of vulnerable people, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. There may be isolated individuals with mental health problems and the difficulties outlined by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and there is no reason why we cannot deal with those issues in guidance, rather than in the Bill. I draw Members’ attention to the guidance that we have issued on ASBOs, which already provides that local authorities are under a duty under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to assess any person who might be in need of community care services. If there is any evidence to suggest that a person who will be the subject of an order has drug, alcohol or mental health problems, the local authority is under a duty to provide support. The guidance that  we have issued under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 says that those who are collecting evidence to apply for the order should, in parallel, consider what support might be necessary.
I am particularly conscious of such issues in the case of young people. Drinking banning orders are also different from ASBOs because they do not apply to youngsters aged between 10 and 16, but only to those aged 16 or above, and that is a key difference. None the less, some 16 and 17-year-olds might be vulnerable, and there is no reason why the youth offending team and the local authority should not get together to see whether support needs to be provided and then to put it in place. We can provide for that in guidance, rather than making provision in the Bill.
What I do not want is a sense in the courts that drinking banning orders will be complicated and that the courts will have to get a range of reports on every single case. I want the courts to use these orders proactively when they have someone in front of them. If they think that these orders can really help to change the culture of binge drinking, I want them on the case, looking at the tools that they have and using these orders. In the isolated cases in which people need extra support, it can be provided. The police must consult the local authority when they are going to make the application. That is the point at which, if those issues are raised, it will be necessary to see whether support should be included.

John Thurso: What the Minister has said goes a long way to dealing with the problem that we have raised. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will take into account everything that the Minister has said. She mentioned the word “guidance”. Clearly, good guidance would obviate the need to include a provision in the Bill. Will such guidance be available to the Committee before we finish our deliberations? If not, at what point in the progress of the Bill will we be able to see it?

Hazel Blears: I am not able to give that assurance. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that guidance will be prepared on how the drinking banning orders should proceed. That will, I am sure, largely mirror the guidance on antisocial behaviour orders.

Mark Prisk: The Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking by saying that an ASBO would be inappropriate because of the two-year period. However, I am sure that you, Mr. Forth, will have spotted that clause 1(5) states:
“A drinking banning order has effect for ... not more than two years”.
I can envisage a scenario in which someone might be banned for 22 months under the proposed order. The difference between that and my hon. Friend’s suggestion would be a mere eight weeks. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that using existing law is often better than creating new law?

Hazel Blears: I entirely accept that where provisions exist we should use them, and that we should promote new law to deal with new circumstances. I thought that I had made it clear that there are significant differences  between antisocial behaviour orders and drinking banning orders. Antisocial behaviour orders can be imposed from the age of 10. They often deal with a complex sequence of antisocial behaviour. The new orders are aimed specifically at drinking. The minimum period for an antisocial behaviour order is two years. The minimum for a drinking banning order is two months.

Mark Prisk: The maximum is two years.

Hazel Blears: The maximum is two years. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s contention that every drinking banning order should be for two years. A drinking banning order that is in force for six months may well suffice. If someone who loves to go to the pub with their friends on a Friday and Saturday night is banned from doing so for three months, that may be sufficient to persuade them to think “Next time I go out with my friends I will not get in that state again and cause that kind of crime and disorder.”

James Clappison: I am sure that the Minister is right to say that antisocial behaviour orders cover a wide variety of types of behaviour and can cover complex situations. She has described a very specific situation as regards drinking—in which someone goes out, drinks too much, and causes trouble. Yet orders can be made for a wide range of periods—from two months to two years. What sort of factors does the Minister think should determine the length of a banning order?

Eric Forth: Order. I detect that the Committee is now drifting somewhat from the substance of the amendments. I am sure that opportunities will arise to debate time frames. Please will the Committee now stick to the substance of the amendment.

Hazel Blears: I have nothing to add except to say that the matter can be set out in guidance, which we hope to have later this year. I cannot be any more specific, and I ask the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurances that I have given.

Lynne Featherstone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking for making it clear that I was speaking with reference to the most vulnerable people. I am sure that the Minister would agree that ASBOs have been served on vulnerable people, which was not the intention. The Liberal Democrats want to create protection against that. I do not want to overdo things and tie the hands of the courts, and on later clauses I shall deal with the matter of giving them more discretion than the Bill perhaps does.
We in Hornsey and Wood Green share with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) the desire to clear our streets and make them walkable and safe for ordinary law-abiding citizens, but I do not think that that conflicts at all with the protection of the most vulnerable people.
In view of what the Minister said about guidance, and on the understanding that it will go some way to addressing my concerns, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ‘prohibition’, insert ‘or requirement’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 111, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ‘is’, insert
‘appropriate in all the circumstances, and’.
No. 169, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert
‘and may impose conditions requiring the subject to take steps necessary to rehabilitate the subject’.
No. 113, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
No. 114, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after ‘considers’, insert ‘appropriate and’.

Humfrey Malins: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 4 and 169, both of which cover the same theme. We have all realised by now that a drink banning order has the effect of banning a person from certain activities. In one sense, that is the beginning and end of the matter—it goes no further. The order will not deal with education or improvement of the defendant’s character. The purpose of my amendment is to enable the court, when making a drink banning order banning a defendant from doing something, to impose on the defendant a requirement to rehabilitate himself or herself, to take appropriate counselling to improve his or her position.
Take the example of a defendant who may have a drink problem and who may have committed a crime connected with alcohol. Merely banning that person from entering pubs does not, in itself, go far enough. I am sure that the Committee is not familiar with a most interesting parallel, which is the precedent in the drink-driving laws for a requirement, or an educational aspect of a sentence. Under that legislation, if someone is caught over the limit and pleads guilty or is convicted, they face an automatic 12-month driving ban. The limits of 35 micrograms for breath and 80 millilitres for blood have been around for a long time. Of course, someone who considerably exceeded the limits would get a much longer ban. Bans tend to vary: the minimum is 12 months but they could go to 24 or 36 months. It does not matter what hardship the defendant suffers—that is tough luck. One cannot help the defendant, much as one would like to.
What has happened to change that? A pilot scheme began some time ago and has now been extended, as far as I know, throughout the London courts. After a district judge or magistrate says to a defendant, “You’ve pleaded guilty to this offence of drink-driving. You are now disqualified for 12 months”, they are now permitted also to say, “If you wish to pay a fee for a drink-driving rehabilitation course and complete the course properly, one quarter of your ban will  automatically be taken away.” A defendant with a 12-month ban is given the option—it is not compulsory—to say, “Yes, please. I would like to go on the course.” I know from experience and from what people have told me that the courses are effective. The defendants pay a sum of money for serious counselling, group therapy and other like-minded approaches. The programme is very significant indeed, and there is great take-up.
An interesting point is that because the appropriate amount to be deducted from the sentence is one quarter, it is becoming common among those of us who sentence to be extremely careful about the original length of the ban. I once made the mistake of banning someone for 15 months, and we had to adjourn the court to work out a quarter of 15—it took a day to do so. It is now almost axiomatic to ban for either 12 or 16 months, with a straight face, to enable the ban to come down from, for example, 16 to 12.
The point is that there is help for defendants. For some who drive drunk, the offence is a one-off—they do not need help—but others who drive drunk would like help, and can get it. The education argument is met extremely simply by the addition of the word “requirement” after “prohibition” so that the provision would read: “may impose any prohibition or requirement”.
The sentencing policy of the courts has become most interesting under this Government. I do not like to pay a backhanded compliment, but there is some anecdotal evidence that the vast number of community orders that have been made under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have given the courts a certain flexibility to mix and match different types of sentences. In the good—or bad—old days, a probation order simply meant that one was on probation, which meant no more or less than keeping in touch with the probation officer, receiving visits, making visits and telling the probation officer of changes of address. That was the end of the story. Now the position is very different. There are a vast number of imaginative courses and programmes, from anger management to drink control, that the courts can include in a sentence. That is an important aspect of the idea of placing a requirement on a defendant under a drinking banning order.

John Thurso: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and the argument that he is developing. This issue relates closely to road safety. Some members of the Committee were involved in discussing the Road Safety Bill in the last Session of the last Parliament. The idea that education, as well as enforcement, is critical, raises the question of whether the education side should be compulsory rather than voluntary. I wonder whether he would like to develop that thought. Should education, as well as enforcement, be a compulsory part of what we seek to do?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes a most interesting point. Of course there are cost and time implications, but I venture to suggest that we are  moving gently in that direction. We are moving from a position in which a drink-drive defendant is able to go on a course to, in time, one in which he or she might be required to do so. There is much to be said for that, providing that that punishment—if one likes to call it that—is used with sensitivity and in the right cases.
A week or two ago, I found myself in a seaside town not too far from Preston. I was not there for any particular reason—except to play golf at Royal Lytham and St. Annes, but that is another story. During the course of a fascinating week, I had an interesting meeting with Alcohol Concern, a group that takes a real interest in the matters that we are debating. I am not going to go into detail, but it is keen—properly so—to include in the Bill mechanisms to deal with the education of defendants and cut their propensity to drink.
I had a helpful chat with Helen Symons, the press and parliamentary officer at Alcohol Concern, who spoke to me of a number of arrest and referral schemes and of alcohol intervention in the youth justice system and the criminal justice system generally. Now is not the moment to go into the details, because I want to probe the Government on the issue and ask whether they will take away my message, but there is no doubt that counselling sessions—following an immediate intervention from the criminal justice system that requires a person to go on a referral course and take advice and counselling—have proved quite successful, particularly with some young people. That is another aspect of the point about education that I am making in the amendment.
I shall bring my remarks to a close by saying that the evidence is mounting that those who find themselves before a court for an offence relating to alcohol should, as well as being punished if that is appropriate, be in receipt of some form of serious education or counselling. It is not always appropriate, but that kind of approach can sometimes help some people. I lost count of the number of defendants whom I used to represent who came out of court after a sentence and said, “Okay, I’ve been punished, but how on earth am I going to be helped?” That is one of the principal purposes behind my amendment, which would include a requirement rather than just a prohibition.

Lynne Featherstone: I welcome the amendment. It raises an important point. Banning the activity can never be the answer. Rehabilitation and education is the only way forward if people are not to reoffend in the same manner, and if they are to learn the error of their ways constructively.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Woking raised the issue of drink-driving. The drink-driving laws, with the safety belt laws, are two of the best examples of legislation that achieved what the Government want to achieve now—a change in the culture. It is no longer socially acceptable to drink and drive, and these days one would not dream of driving off without one’s seat belt on. In both cases, the reason for success was a massive effort with enforcement, campaigning and education. I hope that the Minister will take up the message that by dealing with and  improving the situation rather than banning, the amendment would be a useful adjunct to the legislation.

Hazel Blears: Hon. Members have made some important points, but I take issue with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green when she says that banning can never be the answer. I do not say that banning is the complete answer, but I challenge the hon. Lady and her party. They have a history of opposing all our antisocial behaviour legislation, and saying that tough enforcement was not the way forward. During the past couple of years, our constituents have told us that they want to see enforcement used in cases of poor behaviour.
There must be a twin-track approach of enforcement and support, but if the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to support some of the enforcement measures, they put themselves in the position not of protecting the decent law-abiding majority, but of veering off to protecting the interests of the lawless minority. I hope that the hon. Lady is not positioning her party in that way.

Lynne Featherstone: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to correct myself. I meant to say “total banning”, and I make it clear that we support the intention of the legislation. We seek only to make the legislation more effective through our amendments.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted. The whole Bill is about changing behaviour, and the fact that the Liberal Democrats are giving us a perfect example of changed behaviour is of great assistance to all of us.
The hon. Member for Woking raised some important issues about the drinking banning orders, but a couple of technical difficulties mean that the orders are not four-square with the situations that he outlined in terms of people’s convictions.
The drinking banning orders are civil orders; they are not criminal penalties. It is important that we maintain their status as civil orders, because that means we can use hearsay evidence and professional police officers for evidence. Witnesses who are intimidated will not necessarily have to come forward and face the repercussions that we know that they face in a range of antisocial behaviour situations. It is important that we maintain the integrity of the drinking banning order as a civil order.
When there is a conviction, it is, of course, open to the court to direct a mandatory course of action involving rehabilitation, education, drug support and drink support. The hon. Gentleman referred to a punishment and a sentence, but we are in different legal territory, because we are talking about a civil order.
There are human rights implications, and the hon. Lady raised human rights issues. We cannot mandate a person to have treatment if they are not receptive to it. If they do not want to take it up, we cannot take matters forward without a criminal penalty and the ability of the courts to compel. It is important to retain the status of the orders as civil orders.
In accordance with our policy on all such matters, this is about enforcement and support. In the context of antisocial behaviour orders, we recently gave courts the ability to make individual support orders for juveniles aged 10 to 17, to try to address the causes of antisocial behaviour. Such an order may provide for referral to alcohol and drug support services and anger management courses, and we might be able to consider something similar without undermining the civil nature of the drinking banning order. We have also recently introduced a drug order for adults who have a drug problem that is causing antisocial behaviour. Clearly, we want to ensure that there are provisions for tough enforcement.
Some drinking banning order cases will not be particularly complex. An otherwise respectable person may have become completely drunk, got into trouble and committed an offence. It is entirely appropriate to have a three-month banning order to stop them doing it again. However, I am keen to explore the possibility of support in more complex cases that involve other issues. As I said, I cannot accept the amendments, as they would undermine the civil nature of the orders, but I undertake to consider parallels with the way in which we deal with antisocial behaviour orders through individual support. We try to ensure that referrals are provided for the minority of people who need support services and education to reinforce the behaviour change that we want to achieve with the orders. I undertake to consider the matter and return to it in due course, but for now I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: This has been a helpful and comprehensive debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am not entirely sure that I would go so far as to agree with her about the distinction between criminal and civil status for drinking banning orders. We shall discuss this later, but to all intents and purposes we are dealing with a criminal issue here. Under clause 5, the court can and will make a drinking banning order following, for example, a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offence has all the trappings of the criminal arena.
Furthermore, even the civil application under clause 2 to a magistrates court has a certain criminal flavour to it, as the proceedings are heard in a magistrates court, and under clause 3 they are heard in the county court. However, the Minister’s response has been helpful, and I shall not ask my hon. Friends to join me in voting for the amendment, but beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out ‘or disorderly’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out ‘or disorderly’.
No. 16, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, leave out ‘ or disorderly’.
No. 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 40, leave out ‘or disorderly’.
No. 122, in clause 7, page 6, line 2, leave out ‘or disorderly’.
No. 129, in clause 11, page 9, line 43, leave out ‘or disorderly’.

Humfrey Malins: These amendments are similar if not identical in nature. Amendment No. 5 would omit the words “or disorderly”, and further amendments in the group would omit those words elsewhere in the Bill. As the amendments take the same approach, I shall not speak to them individually.
I wonder whether members of the Committee shared my concern when they first read subsection (2). It is worth reading out, although I gently suggest to the Minister that the words are complete nonsense. It says that a drinking banning order
“may impose any prohibition on the subject which is necessary for the purpose of protecting other persons”—
so far, so good—
“from criminal or disorderly conduct by the subject while he is under the influence of alcohol.”
The continual reference to “criminal or disorderly” conduct completely stumps me. I managed to run the subsection past several of my friends in the judiciary, and they too are utterly stumped by that phrase. There is no definition whatever of the word “disorderly” in the Bill. In the context of alcohol, being drunk and disorderly is a crime, so when one comes across this absurd phrase “criminal or disorderly conduct”, one is bound to ask: what is lawful disorderly conduct when under the influence of alcohol? Let us be blunt, and ask the Minister to be absolutely specific.
First, there is the criminal offence of being drunk, which is under-prosecuted, if I may say so, but that is just a personal view. The second very relevant offence, which we shall come to in due course when we debate the full panoply of offences with which someone under the influence of drink may be charged—there are many more, which I shall talk about later—is the offence of being drunk and disorderly. That is not simply drunk—I have come across people in the street many times who were simply drunk but extremely pleasant—but drunk in a way that means it is a criminal offence. Equally, I have come across people many times who were drunk and disorderly, and there it is; the criminal offence is put into those brackets. Of course, if it is worse than that, one moves up the scale to public order offences.
Let us re-examine subsection (2), bearing in mind what I have just said about this criminal offence of being drunk and disorderly. Let us pause to ask ourselves, and the Minister, what the difference is between being drunk and being under the influence of  alcohol. Can one imagine a court considering a proposed drinking banning order—I cannot think why the court would not give out another punishment to someone who was drunk and disorderly, because it is entitled to do so—because that is the law, saying, “We are going to have to consider issuing a drink banning order because we take the view that this man was engaging in criminal behaviour?” All right, we can live with that, but, hang on a minute, what happens if the court says, “How do we know that he was drunk?” “No,” says the clerk to the justices, “You don’t have to worry about whether he was drunk. He was merely under the influence of alcohol.” What does that mean? Will the Minister set out specifically where this or any other statute gives the definition in law of being under the influence of alcohol, and how that is distinguished from being drunk?
There is also the question of being disorderly. The clause appears to permit a drinking banning order to be issued when someone is simply not guilty of any criminal offence whatever, but is guilty only of apparently disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol. Where is disorderly conduct defined? Can the Minister think of any disorderly conduct that is not already covered by law? Can she give me an example of someone whom she thinks is disorderly, and can she say what she means by that?
If the Minister says that certain conduct would constitute disorderly conduct, I can tell her that that is already covered by law. It will be very difficult for the courts to consider the whole issue of whether someone is drunk or under the influence and whether they are behaving in a criminal or disorderly manner. I repeat that in the context of alcohol, being drunk and disorderly is already a crime, so will the Minister give us a few examples of lawful disorderly conduct.
I hope that I have started what should be a constructive debate.

Sally Keeble: The amendment, small though it appears to be, goes to the heart of much of the Bill. One reason for my particular support for the Bill is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, it chimes with the common-sense experience of most of our constituents. Judges and Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs might not understand what disorderly conduct is, but I think that the vast majority of the public understand exactly what it is, and want it dealt with. Part of the point of the Bill is to provide a range of police powers to deal with a variety of situations that all our constituents recognise and want stopped.
It is not just criminal behaviour that causes problems. We had that argument, from beginning to end, with ASBOs. It is not criminal behaviour that creates misery in the lives of the vast majority of our constituents. Some—too many—are sadly the victims of serious crimes. However, for many people antisocial behaviour and disorder on the streets affect their lifestyles and quality of life and, if they are not dealt with, lead to serious crime.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Lady is making a good contribution, but she begs the question. Can she give us, if she says that we are talking about non-criminal conduct, half a dozen examples of non-criminal conduct—

Sally Keeble: Yes, indeed I will.

Humfrey Malins: Can she give half a dozen examples of non-criminal conduct that have resulted in an ASBO?

Sally Keeble: I think, Mr. Forth, that you would call me to order if I did that, because we are talking about ASBOs.

Humfrey Malins: He has not done it yet.

Sally Keeble: However, I shall give an example on the disorderly point. I am conscious of the fact that in Committee the Minister must take great care in describing the types of crimes or events that the Bill might refer to, but, fortunately, I am not under that restriction, and will deal with such an example. The broad principle is that the argument is the same one that we had about ASBOs.
I seem to remember that my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Home Secretary, entered into discussion about sub-criminal behaviour that did not fulfil the criminal test but which was none the less was a problem to be dealt with. The success of ASBOs clearly shows that everyone understands that disorder in the street that may not be criminal or with which the police choose to deal in a different way is at the heart of public concerns.
Our constituents want this stuff dealt with and they want it dealt with quickly, which is why the range of measures and sanctions that the Bill provides is also important. The Liberal Democrats must understand that. One cannot will the end and not will the means. If we want to stop disorderly behaviour, we must deal with it. At some point we must stop understanding and start stopping it. That is what the Bill is aimed at.

John Thurso: I am interested in the hon. Lady’s argument. One of our duties here and in the other place is to ensure that the Bills that we pass say what they are meant to say. We cannot pass legislation that the courts will interpret as embodying an entirely different intention from the one that we thought it embodied. If, therefore, it is intended to pass legislation about conduct, there is a simple way to do so, which is to remove the words “criminal or disorderly” so that the provision refers simply to the person’s conduct. That would suit what the hon. Lady is looking for, and I should support it.

Sally Keeble: Actually, it would not, because there is an important point about putting in the “criminal or disorderly”. There is a real issue for the public. Our legislation has to do lots of things; Government measures have to deal with lots of issues, such as  people who have problems with alcohol, or mental health problems, and people who are out on the streets—we had a rough sleepers programme to deal with that. We have to deal with the type of nuisance, and worse, that blights our town centres—it certainly blights Northampton town centre—on Friday and Saturday nights, week in and week out, damaging town centre commerce and people’s quality of life, and  precipitating real problems with crime. Our legislation must be capable of being implemented, and deal with the public—

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till Tuesday 18 October at half-past Ten o’clock.